How many classes are enough?

[Ariosto]

Or, how many are too many?

In another thread, someone mentioned "25+ classes that can not be done pathfinder (Not OGL)".



I sort of like the fact that there's no longer the factor of a player spending $$ on a new 3E supplement (from WotC, anyhow) in anticipation of using this or that in a game ... when I as DM would be disinclined to risk even a mild case of splat-itis. I have just the basic three volumes, and that's burden enough for me.

At some point, I think proliferation raises questions as to the point of using a class system in the first place if the classes are not "archetypal" and flexible enough to accommodate an appropriately wide variety of characters.

Although for D&D I could happily get by with just two types -- warriors and magicians -- I recognize that this is an eccentric view!

So, if I were to start up a 3E or Pathfinder game, what would generally be considered an adequate selection of classes?

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I would just use the "core" classes for either 3.5 or Pathfinder.

 

[Crothian]

Enough for the players and the setting. If you can get by with just the core then great, but make sure the players are okay with that. Me the answer has always been all of them plus a few. There are never enough classes out there. For my games the suppliments never hurt the game, they only add to it.

 

[Particle_Man]

Since it is all personal let me list some:

Knight (I like that drawing enemies closer and holding them power)
Crusader
Warblade
Swordsage
Duskblade (for the fighter-magic-users in the house)
Warlock (an easy to use magic-user. Great for players and harried DMs)
Wizard (for more techy types)
Cleric
Scout
Bard
Beguiler (*I* like them - sort of an illusionist-thief)
Factotum (a jack of all trades)

So that makes 12.

 

[Nifft]

How many are enough: 3 (sword guy, spell guy, stabby guy).

How many are too many: 3,000 (but only because I'd have trouble remembering all those names).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Woas]

I would say whatever the number of players in a game, is the number of classes you needed.

 

[Ariosto]

Since it is all personal let me list some:

Knight (I like that drawing enemies closer and holding them power)
Crusader
Warblade
Swordsage
Duskblade (for the fighter-magic-users in the house)
Warlock (an easy to use magic-user. Great for players and harried DMs)
Wizard (for more techy types)
Cleric
Scout
Bard
Beguiler (*I* like them - sort of an illusionist-thief)
Factotum (a jack of all trades)

So that makes 12.

Bard, Cleric and Wizard are in the PHB and SRD, but ...

Where would I find the others?

It's interesting that although the list is only 1 longer (<10%) than the PHB set, 75% of it is from elsewhere. How might the differences be characterized? Does this reflect some common theme, a distinctive kind of setting, more or less spell-casting, style of play, some particular fictional referent?

 

[Dimitri Mazieres]

Bard, Cleric and Wizard are in the PHB and SRD, but ...

Where would I find the others?

The Beguiler, Duskblade and Knight are from Player's Handbook II.
The Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade are from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords.
The Warlock is from Complete Arcane.
The Scout is from Complete Adventurer.
Finally, the Factotum is from Dungeonscape.

You might find this link useful:

Wikipedia - List of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes

 

[fissionessence]

As a player, there's about a 75% chance that I would pass on a game that didn't have a bunch of options for classes. (Or, if it happened to allow the exact class(es) I wanted to play, I guess that would work out.)

As a 4E player who sometimes feels a 3.5 itch, I've wondered about Pathfinder. However, it's not something I would consider until its number of classes was at least 15-20. Until then, regular 3.5 would have to do.

~

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

The problem I have with picking out a preferred list is that I truly think that the basic traits of D&D fantasy classes — battle abilities, skills, spells — should be things characters can freely choose from. I really see the less-fantastic aspects of classes as something that should be used to build rather than a set progression. Only the odder aspects, such as when a class transforms the character, should be hard-coded as levels.